Pool and Chess -- strange bedfellows or natural companions?
- Thread starter 9BallPaul
- Start date
True, but in chess it is multiplied many times over.
A typical chess master of better caliber so IM or GM will remember all his games and hundreds of games of other players in additional to countless other opening lines, endgame positions, tactical patterns and positional schemes.
Great memory is necessary for high level chess but not for most pool games, but it helps.
In chess, calculating 4 moves ahead is a given. By 4 moves ahead I mean you move and I move as 1 move.
In most cases variations need to be calculated and evaluated between 6 and 10 moves deep.
A typical labyrinth of variations will start with 3 or 4 candidate moves, sometimes fewer often more.
At every step you are confronted by similar situation.
Despite calculating I go here, you go there, chess thinking is non linear and relies on pattern recognition. In that sense it is similar to pool as well.
Chess is better for nerves than pool because element of luck is removed.
Unless weak moves by opponent are considered luck.
A typical chess master of better caliber so IM or GM will remember all his games and hundreds of games of other players in additional to countless other opening lines, endgame positions, tactical patterns and positional schemes.
Great memory is necessary for high level chess but not for most pool games, but it helps.
In chess, calculating 4 moves ahead is a given. By 4 moves ahead I mean you move and I move as 1 move.
In most cases variations need to be calculated and evaluated between 6 and 10 moves deep.
A typical labyrinth of variations will start with 3 or 4 candidate moves, sometimes fewer often more.
At every step you are confronted by similar situation.
Despite calculating I go here, you go there, chess thinking is non linear and relies on pattern recognition. In that sense it is similar to pool as well.
Chess is better for nerves than pool because element of luck is removed.
Unless weak moves by opponent are considered luck.
The biggest difference is, pool is mostly physical. I know, I know, "Look what he did he is a genius". The fact is, if we are talking about say one pocket. If you have been playing for a time and around good players to learn, when you make a move it did not just come to you. Pretty much everything that comes up you have seen before and you make the appropriate decision. With a top chess player, the reason you can't beat them is they know almost every possible layout and know the right response from past game by other champions. You can't even get lucky and beat them if you are not also a champion player. There is no move they will even make they are making for the first time.
ShootingArts,
That would be reducing chess to pure memory game and it is not.
Over the century of competition the theory has progressed and memory started to play bigger and bigger part.
However, there is room for novelty and surprise.
What the strong players know is the typical responses in typical situation but even in those situation they are solving complex problems as not all situations can be covered.
A small nuance as a pawn on a different square can make a world of difference.
Novelties are played everyday and lines are refuted in heat of the battle, although more and more often within previous home preparation.
Sad but true.
On lower not world championship level the chess game is still dark and shadowy.
Pool is more infinite.
That would be reducing chess to pure memory game and it is not.
Over the century of competition the theory has progressed and memory started to play bigger and bigger part.
However, there is room for novelty and surprise.
What the strong players know is the typical responses in typical situation but even in those situation they are solving complex problems as not all situations can be covered.
A small nuance as a pawn on a different square can make a world of difference.
Novelties are played everyday and lines are refuted in heat of the battle, although more and more often within previous home preparation.
Sad but true.
On lower not world championship level the chess game is still dark and shadowy.
Pool is more infinite.
Last edited:
strongly agree about the anticipation
Starting at twelve I had jobs with periods of being extremely busy and periods with lots of time to kill. Started playing chess during dead time and was fortunate to have a very intelligent player to compete with. Although I knew how most common lines played out I rarely carried the whole board more than three to five moves ahead.
That is still vastly more complicated than any pool table layout. Perhaps from this, I found it very easy to see complete runs on the pool table even if looking at all fifteen balls at the start of an eight ball game. Reading patterns almost at a glance as I walked up to the table was a major advantage. Setting my opponent up to be the one that stubbed his toe whatever game we were playing was one reason I was very lucky and best of all it that is often all it appeared to be, just luck. Seeing patterns, planning ahead further than the vast majority of my opponents, and cue ball control was pretty much my total game. Two out of three things had a lot to do with my chess game too. Cue ball control isn't real important in chess . . .
Hu
Starting at twelve I had jobs with periods of being extremely busy and periods with lots of time to kill. Started playing chess during dead time and was fortunate to have a very intelligent player to compete with. Although I knew how most common lines played out I rarely carried the whole board more than three to five moves ahead.
That is still vastly more complicated than any pool table layout. Perhaps from this, I found it very easy to see complete runs on the pool table even if looking at all fifteen balls at the start of an eight ball game. Reading patterns almost at a glance as I walked up to the table was a major advantage. Setting my opponent up to be the one that stubbed his toe whatever game we were playing was one reason I was very lucky and best of all it that is often all it appeared to be, just luck. Seeing patterns, planning ahead further than the vast majority of my opponents, and cue ball control was pretty much my total game. Two out of three things had a lot to do with my chess game too. Cue ball control isn't real important in chess . . .
Hu
Steve Davis was president of a British Chess organisation with a1400 rating? Howard Stern has a rating over 1600 LOL
I was. It seems silly to ask if a professional chess player was any good at chess.
9BallPaul
Banned
There is one possibility for luck to enter a chess game: the "touch it you move it" rule. So, when say reaching for a pawn, you touch a bishop by accident, you're required to move the bishop. That's bad luck, or poor depth perception.
Otherwise, I agree that chess is as free of luck as any game I can fathom.
Still, when you think about it, in pool you set about all the actions that take place after striking the cue ball. If you don't anticipate an unfortunate outcome, whose fault is that?
God's, maybe?
Cool Beans!
Thanks to the wonders of the edit button you replied to my post two minutes before I posted! Or at least your original post was two minutes sooner. Actually there is a hell of a difference between playing ahead the likely lines, common lines, or every possible move. At one time I played three to five moves ahead, any possible move. I also regularly defeated a player that would be ranked far above me simply because I knew his play very well and knew he was playing five to seven moves ahead or more, for any conventional play. Making an unconventional move fairly often kept him off balance. The trick was to make unconventional moves that weren't costly.
I never reduced chess or pool to only memory, far from it. If memory alone was all it took the computers would have beaten all humans consistently long long ago.
Hu
Thanks to the wonders of the edit button you replied to my post two minutes before I posted! Or at least your original post was two minutes sooner. Actually there is a hell of a difference between playing ahead the likely lines, common lines, or every possible move. At one time I played three to five moves ahead, any possible move. I also regularly defeated a player that would be ranked far above me simply because I knew his play very well and knew he was playing five to seven moves ahead or more, for any conventional play. Making an unconventional move fairly often kept him off balance. The trick was to make unconventional moves that weren't costly.
I never reduced chess or pool to only memory, far from it. If memory alone was all it took the computers would have beaten all humans consistently long long ago.
Hu
9BallPaul
Banned
Yours is among the many intelligent posts to this thread from fellow AZers, which only confirms my theory that pool attracts thinking people, just as chess does. Pool presents a problem with a physical element required to solve it; chess is entirely mental, but problem-solving just the same,
It was weird, I saw your post and responded then went back and could not find my post then saw it ahead of yours so I added ShootingArts. hehehe.
I spent most of my life playing chess became a master, provincial champion and have finished top 10 in a couple of national championships.
26 years of tournament battles but have retired 10 years ago as it was too mentally draining.
Memory or lack of it was a stumbling block for sure.
I could play 3 blindfold games at once but still had trouble remembering things.
Playing the opponent is a good strategy used often when you know someone’s likes and dislikes as long as there is a sound positional bases to it. For most part strong moves that’s all it takes.
I spent most of my life playing chess became a master, provincial champion and have finished top 10 in a couple of national championships.
26 years of tournament battles but have retired 10 years ago as it was too mentally draining.
Memory or lack of it was a stumbling block for sure.
I could play 3 blindfold games at once but still had trouble remembering things.
Playing the opponent is a good strategy used often when you know someone’s likes and dislikes as long as there is a sound positional bases to it. For most part strong moves that’s all it takes.
Define 'touch', as it grabbing it? If your hand touches a bishop on the way to the pawn there is no penalty for it. There is such thing as intent in chess. If you grab a wrong piece that's another story. I will go with poor depth perception.
9 ball - the guy misses the pocket and the 9 ball goes into another one winning the game, pure luck. No such thing in chess. Many other examples are possible.
9BallPaul
Banned
Guess you're right. I had the rule wrong. Here's the standard from Wiki:
In serious play, if a player having the move touches one of their pieces as if having the intention of moving it, then the player must move it if it can be legally moved. So long as the hand has not left the piece on a new square, the latter can be placed on any accessible square. If a player touches one of the opponent's pieces then he or she must capture that piece if it can be captured. If none of the touched pieces can be moved or captured there is no penalty, but the rule still applies to the player's own pieces (Schiller 2003:19–20).
When castling, the king must be the first piece touched.[5] If the player touches their rook at the same time as touching the king, the player must castle with that rook if it is legal to do so. If the player completes a two-square king move without touching a rook, the player must move the correct rook accordingly if castling in that direction is legal. If a player starts to castle illegally, another legal king move must be made if possible, including castling with the other rook (Schiller 2003:20).
When a pawn is moved to its eighth rank, once the player takes their hand off the pawn, it can no longer be substituted for a different move of the pawn. However, the move is not complete until the promoted piece is released on that square.
If a player wishes to touch a piece with the intention of adjusting its position on a square, the player must first alert their opponent of their intention by saying "J'adoube" or "I adjust". Once the game has started, only the player with the move may touch the pieces on the board (Schiller 2003:19–20).
There is a group of Bosnians that play chess at the Starbucks next to where I work.
They get pretty pissed when you adjust pieces that aren't yours. Keep your hands on your own pieces! :smile:
They get pretty pissed when you adjust pieces that aren't yours. Keep your hands on your own pieces! :smile:
I have gotten lazy
It has been decades since I wanted to get in a game with someone that played even moderately decent chess, far too much mental effort involved. I'm starting to play poker though and finding that the mental effort can be about as much. Chess players fair well playing poker, as poker is often a game of mental endurance. Somebody can play well for hours and undo it all with one false move.
Hu
It was weird, I saw your post and responded then went back and could not find my post then saw it ahead of yours so I added ShootingArts. hehehe.
I spent most of my life playing chess became a master, provincial champion and have finished top 10 in a couple of national championships.
26 years of tournament battles but have retired 10 years ago as it was too mentally draining.
Memory or lack of it was a stumbling block for sure.
I could play 3 blindfold games at once but still had trouble remembering things.
Playing the opponent is a good strategy used often when you know someone’s likes and dislikes as long as there is a sound positional bases to it. For most part strong moves that’s all it takes.
It has been decades since I wanted to get in a game with someone that played even moderately decent chess, far too much mental effort involved. I'm starting to play poker though and finding that the mental effort can be about as much. Chess players fair well playing poker, as poker is often a game of mental endurance. Somebody can play well for hours and undo it all with one false move.
Hu
What's the connection?....the disconnection is the connection....
What they have in common are knowing what sequence of moves to use when, what the outcome will be for a certain sequence of moves, and being able to read their opponents strength and weakness's.
There can be numerous patterns in a game, but sometimes it is knowing which pattern or rather the proper sequence of shots to use to achieve the outcome you want. Same in chess.
Knowing what you opponent's strength and weakness are can be used to choose the best shot to do.
Like in chess, a pool game is to the death and this needs to be taken into consideration on all shot sequences to be used. Wrong shot choice, poor execution, you are dead. If you ever made one mistake in a game and lost, you know what I mean.
No mercy.
There can be numerous patterns in a game, but sometimes it is knowing which pattern or rather the proper sequence of shots to use to achieve the outcome you want. Same in chess.
Knowing what you opponent's strength and weakness are can be used to choose the best shot to do.
Like in chess, a pool game is to the death and this needs to be taken into consideration on all shot sequences to be used. Wrong shot choice, poor execution, you are dead. If you ever made one mistake in a game and lost, you know what I mean.
No mercy.
9BallPaul
Banned
If that's so, you should alert the folks at Wiki. You might pm JAM about how to do it; she's got some Wiki experience.
Must say I Googled his name and found nothing but high praise for his chess analysis. So where exactly does this "bad rep" come from? A chess board similar to this one? (insert smiley here, 'cept I don't use 'em.)
The important question is whether Schiller can run a rack.